Stare decisis allows common law to develop gradually and incrementally. We show howjudge-made law can steadily evolve and tend to increase efficiency even in the absence ofnew information. Judges' opinions must argue that their decisions are consistent withprecedent: this is the more costly, the greater the innovation they are introducing. As aresult, each judge effects a cautious marginal change in the law. Alternative models inwhich precedents are either strictly obeyed or totally discarded would instead predictabrupt large swings in legal rules. Thus we find that the evolution of case law isgrounded not in binary logic fixing judges' constraints, but in costly rhetoric shapingtheir incentives. We apply this finding to an assessment of the role of analogicalreasoning in shaping the joint development of different areas of law.